Seymour Hersh: The Truth on bin Laden

[Virgil Showlion]

Who he is:

The last time famed US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh made news in the global media was with his massive, 5000-word expose from December of 2013 "Whose sarin?" revealing the true motives behind the Syrian near-war of 2013 including what we had said from the very beginning: the very professionally created YouTube clips showing the consequences of what was said to have been an Assad poison gas attack, were nothing but a fake (subsequent reports identified the propaganda source as Rami Abdul Rahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, whose entire operation has been funded by an unidentified European country.)

Fast forward to today when in a report whose word count doubles his previous record for the London Review of Books, Hersh targets a topic near and dear to the hearts of many Americans: the story of the capture and death of Osama bin Laden.

What he is alleging:

• bin Laden had been a prisoner of the Pakistan intelligence at the Abbottabad compound since 2006 (something revealed previously in "Osama bin Laden 'protected by Pakistan in return for Saudi cash")
  
  
• the two most senior Pakistani military leaders knew of the raid in advance and had made sure that the two helicopters delivering the Seals to Abbottabad could cross Pakistani airspace without triggering any alarms;
  
  
• the CIA did not learn of bin Laden’s whereabouts by tracking his couriers, as the White House has claimed since May 2011, but from a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer who betrayed the secret in return for much of the $25 million reward offered by the US,
  
  
• while Obama did order the raid and the Seal team did carry it out, many other aspects of the administration’s account were false.
  

The story goes into remarkable depth. One particularly troubling point:

The White House’s solution was to silence the Seals. On 5 May, every member of the Seal hit team – they had returned to their base in southern Virginia – and some members of the Joint Special Operations Command leadership were presented with a nondisclosure form drafted by the White House’s legal office; it promised civil penalties and a lawsuit for anyone who discussed the mission, in public or private. ‘The Seals were not happy,’ the retired official said. But most of them kept quiet, as did Admiral William McRaven, who was then in charge of JSOC. ‘McRaven was apoplectic. He knew he was [expletive] by the White House, but he’s a dyed-in-the-wool Seal, and not then a political operator, and he knew there’s no glory in blowing the whistle on the president. When Obama went public with bin Laden’s death, everyone had to scramble around for a new story that made sense, and the planners were stuck holding the bag.’

For those unwilling to read the 20-some pages of Mr. Hersh's exposee, his thesis is that the story fed to the public about how bin Laden was killed was nothing more than pro-administration propaganda (something I know some of you have long suspected), intended to cover up numerous technical, political, and diplomatic blunders that marred the actual killing.

The full story is being featured on Zero Hedge.

[Virgil Showlion]

Thoughts? Skepticism?

The story relies heavily (almost exclusively) on the testimony of anonymous sources, hence Hersh's credibility is paramount.

Having said that, the man isn't a lightweight. He helped break the My Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib, and Al Assad sarin gas hoax. He's a regular contributor to the New Yorker, HuffPo, et al., and numerous mainstream outlets (including the aforementioned) are carrying this story.

[The Captain]

I'll have to read it during lunch.  Before then two thoughts:

1.  Pakistan is hardly a friend to the US - why would they help us like that AND if they did help us why would the US cover story be crafted to make their military seem so inept?

2.  FWIW I always thought the story of OBL's takedown was pure BS and propaganda.  I'm not sure I buy this version either.

[Tennesseer]

I am never too comfortable about single, anonymous sources:

"Hersh based his report on a single, anonymous source. This individual, he said, is a “retired senior intelligence official who was knowledgeable about the initial intelligence about bin Laden’s presence in Abottabad.”"

Report: Obama lied about bin Laden raid

[hoops902]

::1. Pakistan is hardly a friend to the US - why would they help us like that AND if they did help us why would the US cover story be crafted to make their military seem so inept?::

They would need a U.S. cover story, otherwise they just held up a huge sign that said "Hey, we helped the U.S. kill Bin Laden"...which is going to make them a target in the area.

As for why they'd help us...I don't know.  I can certainly imagine a scenario such as this though  "Hi Pakistan, how are you doin guy?  We know you have Bin Laden, we know exactly where he is, we've got surveillance on the place, and we're just gonna go ahead and firebomb the shit out of it followed by murdering everyone we think might have been involved in harboring him by your government....OR...you could just let us come in, put a bullet in his head, leave all of your folks alive, and we'll pretend you had no idea what was going on."

[dannylion]

Just because he says it doesn't make it true.     

[billisonboard]

Initial reaction. If the basis facts that lead up to the raid are true, it seems like there was a much less risky way for achieving the goal of bin Laden ending up dead.

[Tennesseer]

The many problems with Seymour Hersh's Osama bin Laden conspiracy theory

[Virgil Showlion]

To be fair to Hersh, a litany of "inconsistencies" (which aren't so much inconsistencies as they are gaps in the narrative) is the first thing I would expect MSNBC (the administration mouthpiece) to procure. It's going to take him time to fill in those gaps, if he can.

I have to agree, though, that if he can't produce any documents or evidence more substantive than anonymous sources in the Pakistani military, I side with the skeptics.

I'm with The Captain: just because the official story is BS doesn't automatically make Hersh's exposee true.

[The Captain]

Ok, I read through the drivel story.  That's about 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Occam's razor basically rips both stories to shreds.  There is just so much about either version that doesn't hang together that I can't get on board with either version.

I'm actually surprised the White House bothered to address this.

[Spellbound454]

::1. Pakistan is hardly a friend to the US - why would they help us like that AND if they did help us why would the US cover story be crafted to make their military seem so inept?::

The US pays the Pakistani military and contributes aid.....Don't know the exact figures but its over a $billion pa

They are being orchestrated to fight the Taliban in the North and there is a lot of fighting and bombs going off, all the time. 

This compound was not far from a military base....it seems unlikely the soldiers weren't curious about its occupants (from a security point of view)

However, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories from "sources"

If something comes out on WikiLeaks...I'll take a look.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 11, 2015 15:38:26 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Ok, I read through the drivel story.  That's about 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Occam's razor basically rips both stories to shreds.  There is just so much about either version that doesn't hang together that I can't get on board with either version.

I'm actually surprised the White House bothered to address this.

He's a bit of a legend. And since many don't buy the White House narrative, new theories are of considerable interest.

Occam's razor is a double-edged sword. For example, one can easily "debunk" Anne Frank's diary as a hoax perpetrated by European Jews by applying Occam's razor. It's rife with little "inconsistencies", observations that don't mesh with the historical record, missing evidence, seemingly contradictory statements, etc.

There are always oddities, exceptions, unlikely circumstances, bizarre happenings, and nonsensical happenstance in reality, and requiring things to be universally simple is the surest way to summarily reject real life. That's not to say there's never a point when a story becomes so contrived that it can't reasonably be true, but if history is any guide, that standard ought to admit a tremendous bit of slack.

Personally I'm going to wait to see if Mr. Hersh can procure anything more substantive. Sometimes the mere act of publishing these articles flushes out new witnesses and evidence.

[Virgil Showlion]

Ratchets: Virtually all conspiracy theorist sites I know of adamantly claim that bin Laden died of (I believe) liver failure in 2003.

It's ironic, but the conspiracy sphere is among the most vocal critics of Hersh's claim.

[mroped]

How he died and when it is absolutely irrelevant!
All I care is that he's gone.
Who did it and who took the credit?
again irrelevant!

[billisonboard]

May 11, 2015 17:19:07 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

...

According to Hersh's story, Navy SEALs met no resistance at Abottabad and were escorted by a Pakistani intelligence officer to bin Laden's bedroom, where they killed him. Bin Laden's body was "torn apart with rifle fire" and pieces of the corpse "tossed out over the Hindu Kush mountains" by Navy SEALs during the flight home (no reason is given for this action). There was no burial at sea because "there wouldn’t have been much left of bin Laden to put into the sea in any case."

I find it hard to believe that somebody of his "stature" was all alone in a compound. Why live in a compound alone? Isn't he a leader, where are all his followers...who was transferring his messages back and forth...trusted advisors/confidants/family...nobody was around him at all?
...

Here is a relevant part of the puzzle:

• bin Laden had been a prisoner of the Pakistan intelligence at the Abbottabad compound since 2006 (something revealed previously in "Osama bin Laden 'protected by Pakistan in return for Saudi cash")...

So the Navy SEALS met no resistance because his prison guards stepped aside and let them pass.

fwiw, I don't buy that is what happened.

[Spellbound454]

I'm not sure why the Saudis would pay to protect him(Even though he was born there).......Al Qaeda committed terrorist acts ie bombs within that country. They tried to get rid of the Royal family.

If anything they would want him dead.

As for the body. The military commanders (and government) would want DNA, samples, photographs. Someone would be in a whole heap of trouble if they had chucked it out of a helicopter.

What about the doctor who got tried and convicted (treason) for passing on details of Bin Laden's children to the CIA when they went for a hepatitis immunisation?

Then it got overturned and he was tried for something else. What the heck is all that about?

I think that given the proximity of the compound to a military facility....The Military must have known he was there.

You don't have a big fortress next door... and not ask about it.

He was being protected by accolytes on the ground from within the Pakistan Army.

A bit embarrassing seeing as Pakistan is supposed to be an ally and all the money which has ben pumped in to the area by the US>

There may well be a cover story to save face....which is why people are suspicious.

but the first part of the story OP seems too far fetched to me.

[Virgil Showlion]

Interview with Seymour Hersh from slate.com. For those interested in the story. It answers some questions and raises some new ones.